'Is AV really so complex? Or is it just confusion marketing?' blog discussion

rhyski

kermitfrog wrote: »

.

If the 'Yes' voters win the referendum, it will very likely be with a minority turnout. Will Nick Clegg then say that "we cannot accept the result because it wasn't supported by at least 50% of the electorate, and therefore does not represent what we stand for and betrays the very principle of the referendum."

Will he heck!

.

at least 50% (ie. the majority) of the people voting will support it.

irnbru_2

rhyspaulburton wrote: »

Where on earth did you get "yes voters are more likely to change their minds" from?

See 3rd last paragraph here.

zagfles

clouty wrote: »

I think Anotherbaldrick has put his finger on why so many are saying they will vote NO in the referendum - it's the fear of change. I don't see how AV can be considered a "pig in a poke" though, when it has been explained all over the web, and is pretty simple, really. The Electoral Commission have a video link at the bottom of it's home page, and for cat lovers, this one was put up recently on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHuiDD_oTk&feature=youtu.be

AV results will reflect the wishes, to a greater or lesser extent, of the majority. FPTP often does not.

AV is simple where there are just two broad opinion groups (eg cat/dogs, coffee shops/pubs) and people always transfer within those groups. Then it can enable those groups to stand candidates against each other without harming others of the same opinion group. For that it's great.

But the real world isn't like that. The video should have shown a cat, a dog and a hamster. Given that cats and dogs hate each other, and assuming hamsters are 50/50 towards dogs and cats, if cat is in the lead then the cat candidate will not want the dog candidate eliminated, as the dog's transferred votes will all go to the hamster. So the cat will want his old enemy in the final round with him, so the hamster's transferred votes split giving the cat victory!

kermitfrog

rhyspaulburton wrote: »

at least 50% (ie. the majority) of the people voting will support it.

The question was rhetorical.

.

rhyski

zagfles wrote: »

AV is simple where there are just two broad opinion groups (eg cat/dogs, coffee shops/pubs) and people always transfer within those groups. Then it can enable those groups to stand candidates against each other without harming others of the same opinion group. For that it's great.

But the real world isn't like that. The video should have shown a cat, a dog and a hamster. Given that cats and dogs hate each other, and assuming hamsters are 50/50 towards dogs and cats, if cat is in the lead then the cat candidate will not want the dog candidate eliminated, as the dog's transferred votes will all go to the hamster. So the cat will want his old enemy in the final round with him, so the hamster's transferred votes split giving the cat victory!

Your example also makes massive assumptions about people's second preferences - which equally isn't what the real world is like.

The cat video was simply trying to show how under FPTP a party could win seats with minority support, even though the majority of voters were against them (which is one major problem with FPTP). It was explaining this as simply as possible with the use of cats and dogs and doesn't need to be taken literally.

And with your example of AV - it's the most popular candidates who go on to the next round of counting (whichever the most popular candidates are) - until one of them gains 50% support;
In your example under AV - if dogs and cats were the most popular in the first round, then they'd be against each other in the final round of counting, otherwise, if cats and hamsters were the most popular in the first round, then they'd be against each other in the final round of counting...

but anyway, ignoring any correlations to animals or anything else - this is a clear explanation of AV for anyone interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA3_t-08Vr0&feature=player_embedded

robpw2

http://youtu.be/HiHuiDD_oTk no need to be confused meaow

jeanmd

robpw2 wrote: »

http://youtu.be/HiHuiDD_oTk no need to be confused meaow

Love it! The YES campaign should use this on TV then maybe more people would understand AV.

DdraigGoch

@Exhortation - with all due respct and solely in my humble opinion, the Monster Raving Loony Party has come up with some cracking and sensible ideas - helmets whilst riding motorbikes, seat belts in cars etc unfortunately these have come in amongst an awful [in all senses of the word!] lot of drivel; but the whole point of the MRP is to point up the stupidity, stuffiness and cronyism of the "usualsuspects". So, hedgehog motorcyclists test and free spectacles for dogs aside, please don't presume that anyone who isn't "usual" is always, even if their name implies it, "Loony". :-)

On the AV debate, I too feel that this ATV system is probably the worst system, but equally the most supported by the general politerati. They're the ones who get to decide what we get to vote on, and if they don't want PR or any other system put forward, it won't be. So, maybe we should grab this change and then vote, vote, vote for further change!

Also, if anyone is truly interested in what their MP/AM/SMP/NIMP[? sorry] is doing, www.theyworkforyou.com is a good place to see what's going on and to hold them to account. Hope this helps.

zagfles

rhyspaulburton wrote: »

Your example also makes massive assumptions about people's second preferences - which equally isn't what the real world is like

The real world doesn't just have 2 opinion groups.

The cat video was simply trying to show how under FPTP a party could win seats with minority support, even though the majority of voters were against them (which is one major problem with FPTP). It was explaining this as simply as possible with the use of cats and dogs and doesn't need to be taken literally.

It showed 2 broad opinion groups, which like I said is what AV is purrfect for (sorry!).

And with your example of AV - it's the most popular candidates who go on to the next round of counting (whichever the most popular candidates are) - until one of them gains 50% support;

In your example under AV - if dogs and cats were the most popular in the first round, then they'd be against each other in the final round of counting, otherwise, if cats and hamsters were the most popular in the first round, then they'd be against each other in the final round of counting...

Unless a few cats decided to vote dog tactically, to get the dog in the final round, thereby eliminating the hamster and getting the benefit of half the hamster's transferred votes. Rather than be up against the hamster in the final round who'd get all the dog's transferred votes. Cunning creatures cats, you know

rhyski

zagfles wrote: »

The real world doesn't just have 2 opinion groups.

It showed 2 broad opinion groups, which like I said is what AV is purrfect for (sorry!).

of course the real world has a wider spectrum of opinions/policies/etc - it's not wrong for people to have opinions (or preferences) on more than one political party is it? Surely it would be better to allow people to express these, to ensure you end up with a candidate who the majority are happy with?

zagfles wrote: »

Unless a few cats decided to vote dog tactically, to get the dog in the final round, thereby eliminating the hamster and getting the benefit of half the hamster's transferred votes. Rather than be up against the hamster in the final round who'd get all the dog's transferred votes. Cunning creatures cats, you know

but tactical voting occurs much more with FPTP than it would with AV - as to vote tactically with AV is so difficult to do (without knowing quite accurately what voter intentions are going to be within a constituency). It's a fact that less people vote tactically with AV.

I know that AV is not a perfect system, but it's still the better of the two systems on offer in my opinion.